This verse does nothing of the sort.
You are wrong in both assumptions - that the burden rests on me; and that an alternative ayah exists.
But if you believe otherwise, then its your burden to provide an alternative ayat.
Oh, I hadn't read this post. I didn't see my name on the quoted post, so I assumed it wasn't directed towards me.
fyst, why did you skip over my post ? I'll post it again just in case you missed it:
fyst: There are verses that can be interpreted in a manner to suggest that the Quran is referring to an expanding universe, but there is nothing in there that suggests the event of Big Bang.
The Persian Shah: The latter is a logical deduction of the former. Note that the same is the reasoning of the scientists (i.e. extrapolation of the latter fact to achieve the former one)..
The "point of origin" has not been directly observed by the scientists either. This verse quite clearly & undeniably refers to the expansion of the universe & hence the Big Bang.
There is nothing in the Qur'an that suggests an expanding universe. The verse that is quotes refers to the separation of the heavens from the earth. Saying that this refers to an expanding universe is invalid on several counts:
First, you cannot conclude from this that the reference is to an expanding universe, since it could also mean the separation of the skies from the planet earth, as the ahadith used in the Puya exegesis and al-Mizan claim.
Second, the verse talks about an event in the past. It does not say that the heavens and the earth are separating continually from each other. It just says that they were separated. And thus it is not possible to conclude from this verse that the universe has been expanding continually, and thus must have been dense and hot a long time ago.
Finally, the hadith used here in the exegesis has been deemed reliable by both Ayatullah Puya and Allamah Tabatabai. The version of the hadith that I quoted on the other thread from al-Mizan is narrated by Imam Sadiq, as opposed to the majhool one that Jondab has referenced. So this means that there are multiple chains of this hadith, which makes it more reliable than a single majhool chain. Secondly, there is a very unique method of authentication that is used by Shi'a scholars. The Imams have advised that if a hadith complements the Qur'an, then accept it, and if it contradicts the Qur'an, then reject it. No reference to the chain necessary. So even though the hadith referred to by Jondab has a majhool chain, we see that it is in accordance to the Qur'an. See, the entire verse is:
[21:30] Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
So right after this part that was quoted earlier, we have the reference to all living beings made of water. The hadith that was quoted by Allamah Tabatabai and Puya has Imam Sadiq and Imam Baqir explaining how this separation has to do with the sky of the earth separating from the earth so that it was possible for it to rain and thus plants could grow. So the hadith here does complement the verse, which also refers to water being needed for living beings. So even though the hadith (and its different versions) may have majhool chains, it may still be true, since it complements the Quran (and since not all majhool chains mean that the hadith is false).
I didn't say "figurative", I said "metaphysical". How many skies are there according to science? Just one. So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.
That doesn't even make sense. How can it refer to the universe in a "metaphysical sense" ? What possible interpretation do you derive from that ?
Which zahir aspect did I reject? You are confused. I said it has a metaphysical meaning, which means it refers to things that are not directly physically accessible through science. For example, reference to angels and jinns in the Qur'an is metaphysical. Since scientific methods cannot detect these beings. In the same way scientific experiments cannot detect the multiple heavens, so this verse is referring to metaphysical phenomena.
Furthermore, even if it could, what reason do you have for neglecting the literal (zahir) aspect of it ?
Have you read that article??? It has nothing to do with whether there are metaphysical aspects to the Qur'an. It is simply speaking about not rejecting the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses. The article is elaborating on the literal/figurative interpretation issue. "Metaphysical" is not the antonym of "literal".
Your unsupported restriction of the ayat of the Qur`an to their "metaphysical sense" is completely invalid. See the above article.